History on "headship" in the church

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Gerry Chudleigh just published a very short book today on "A Short History of the Headship Doctrine in the Seventh-day Adventist Church."

It's a fascinating (and quick) read. Lots of historical facts I hadn't heard of previously. You can download it for free HERE

[CoAspen]

Who new men would become so afraid of women and use religion as their reason! Hmmm......not original though, religion has a history of misuse for mankind's human desires.

Thanks for the read!

[Gregory Matthews]

Of great value.

[Tom Wetmore]

@Green Cochoa Here is another headship topic...

[Green Cochoa]

A few comments regarding some of Gerry's main points (his words in purple).

"In this study we will see that “the headship principle” is, in fact, new to Seventh-day Adventists in all parts of the world."

There is nothing wrong with "new."  Ellen White has told us the church should grow in its knowledge of truth, and the new light would come.  In fact, her pen is clear that we are duty-bound to study the new truths that come to light.

The momentous issues at stake through neglect of the word of God should be carefully considered. The study of the Bible is worthy of the best mental effort, the most sanctified ability. When new light is presented to the church, it is perilous to shut yourselves away from it. Refusing to hear because you are prejudiced against the message to the messenger will not make your case excusable before God. To condemn that which you have not heard and do not understand will not exalt your wisdom in the eyes of those who are candid in their investigations of truth. And to speak with contempt of those whom God has sent with a message of truth, is folly and madness. If our youth are seeking to educate themselves to be workers in His cause, they should learn the way of the Lord, and live by every word that proceedeth out of His mouth. They are not to make up their minds that the whole truth has been unfolded, and that the Infinite One has no more light for His people. If they entrench themselves in the belief that the whole truth has been revealed, they will be in danger of discarding precious jewels of truth that shall be discovered as men turn their attention to the searching of the rich mine of God's word.  {CSW 32.1}

I agree with Gerry in the following:

The foundations for the modern “headship principle” are two Bible passages written by Paul. Those texts are, of course, not new. Paul mentions to Christians in two cities in Asia Minor that man is head of woman. In 1 Cor. 11:3 he says, “The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” And in Eph. 5:22-23ff, he tells Christians they should all “submit to one another,” and then illustrates this by telling wives to “submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church.” He balances that advice with: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.”

Those texts have always been in the New Testament. But what do they mean? How is the headship of men, or of husbands, to be applied today? The modern “headship principle” is one of many possible answers to that question. 

But I disagree regarding Mrs. White's stance when he adds:

According to the online index, Ellen White, who wrote about the Bible for over 70 years, never quoted Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 11:3 that “the head of woman is man.” 

Here's the proof:

The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the church; and any course which the wife may pursue to lessen his influence and lead him to come down from that dignified, responsible position is displeasing to God. It is the duty of the wife to yield her wishes and will to her husband. Both should be yielding, but the word of God gives preference to the judgment of the husband. And it will not detract from the dignity of the wife to yield to him whom she has chosen to be her counselor, adviser, and protector. The husband should maintain his position in his family with all meekness, yet with decision. . . .  {1T 307.1}  

Perhaps the index simply needs to be updated.

I also think Gerry needs to read 1 Corinthians again if he truly believes as he has written, that:

Paul’s point in 1 Cor. 11 was that women should not cut their hair and they should wear hats to church. 

If that were Paul's point for the chapter, it could have been stated in a single verse, two verses max.  But his misunderstanding of Paul's point carries forward with his next sentences into an entirely unfounded conclusion.

Like other Christians, most Adventists have believed that long hair and hats were local cultural requirements in Paul’s time, but not in ours. When those cultural issues went away, Paul’s headship argument was sort of orphaned—an argument without an apparent application. 

Those "cultural issues went away"?  In my part of the world, they have most certainly not gone away.  Women are more beautiful here, too.  (Though around here, the "hat" is usually traded for an umbrella, which is used out-of-doors, sunshine or rain.)

While no single authority controls headship theology, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), a Calvinist organization based in Wheaton, Illinois, and co-founded by Wayne Grudem and John Piper, is the best-known and most influential organization that develops and promotes headship theology.6 The most authoritative document of the headship movement is the Danvers Statement, drafted by CBMW in 1987.7 

God is the single authority that "controls," or should control, our theology.  Crediting people with a "control" of such things is popery.  I base my theology not on any other man's views, but on a "thus saith the LORD."  Upon what does Gerry base his views?